You have to actually try to be this stupid.
I don’t get all this talk about how the Democrats cannot afford to not choose Obama, because of fear of alienating the African-American vote. It’s not like we don’t have an opposite reaction if Democrats don’t choose Clinton, among segments of Latinos, perhaps part of the Jewish and Catholic vote, certain women and working-class Democrats… That ship has already sailed.
Clinton and Obama are not in an equal position. If the convention in Denver picks the nominee that has won the most states, the most votes, and the most pledged delegates, there will be precious little for the other candidate (and their supporters) to complain about. Not so, if the reverse happens.
In any tough fought primary campaign the loser and their supporters are disappointed, sometimes bitterly so. If they feel like their loss was due to dirty tactics and dishonest attacks, the bitterness can be long-lasting and even carry into the general election. But as long as the loss is seen as legitimate (e.g., the votes were counted honestly) the fallout from a contested primary is usually non-fatal to the eventual nominee. There are, of course, exceptions.
Provided that Obama receives the nomination after winning the pledged delegate count, there is no reason for ‘Latinos, perhaps part of the Jewish and Catholic vote, certain women and working-class Democrats’ to lose confidence in the process. Their preferred candidate simply lost. It happens.
But if Obama wins the pledged delegate count and still does not gain the nomination, his supporters (most especially but certainly not limited to African-Americans) will be deeply, deeply disillusioned with the process. Even if Clinton were to catch up in the popular vote (a near pipe-dream, but nonetheless) it would offer some measure of mitigation, but not nearly enough to avoid a gross sense of injustice.
If Jerome Armstrong cannot anticipate the rift such an outcome would create in the Democratic Party, then he isn’t qualified to opine on American politics. African-American turnout in the general election will be severely depressed, and the damage will be lasting.
Black turnout is absolutely critical to any Democratic statewide run for office in states like Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Latino turnout can be critical in some states, too, but Armstrong has no argument for why Latino turnout would be severely depressed by a legitimate Obama nomination.
Obama may have a different base than Clinton, but if we are going to do an honest analysis, we have to ask which constituencies are going to stay-home or vote for McCain because Obama won the nomination (in their eyes) illegitimately. The answer is, of course, none. Obama has the conventional and legitimate claim to the nomination. Clinton’s claim is based on non-traditional and non-conventional arguments. Her claim is an electability argument, which can wax and wane depending on the day.
Are there some Jewish, Catholic, white working class, and female voters that will vote for Clinton and not for Obama? Certainly. Of course, the opposite is also true. But the operative question is why will they or won’t they vote for Obama? If it is not because of the perceived illegitimacy of his nomination then it isn’t really relevant, is it?
So, why won’t blacks vote for Clinton if she is the nominee? For starters, it is because she will have won unconventionally, and on the argument that Barack Obama is unelectable. Why is he unelectable? Well, currently the Clinton campaign is saying he is unelectable because he has connections to an urban black church and a controversial pastor. That is an argument that, whatever its objective merits, is a straight rebuke of the legitimacy of African-Americans as Americans. To win, Clinton will have had to convince the overwhelmingly white superdelegates that Obama’s connections to the black community render him unacceptable to the broader general electorate. They cannot win any other way.
Is there any sense in which Obama’s nomination is dependent on convincing the electorate that Clinton’s gender renders her unelectable? No. First of all, Obama has already secured the nomination in the traditional sense, and he doesn’t need to make extracurricular arguments about electability. But, secondly, his campaign has always (until recently) argued that Clinton is fully qualified to be president and has never to my knowledge raised her gender as a negative in this campaign (either overtly, or covertly).
There are going to be some women that think Clinton was treated unfairly in this process because of her gender, but very few of them will be able to harbor the kind of lingering resentment toward the Obama campaign that would preclude them from supporting him in the fall.
At this point in the process, the legitimacy of Obama’s nomination is so established by The Math that the Democratic Party has almost no choice but to nominate him. To fail to do so would destroy the electoral viability of the party not only in the presidential race but in statewide downticket races all across the country.
If Jerome Armstrong doesn’t get that, it’s really rather pathetic.
Blacks are overwhelmingly voting for Obama. Keeping in mind that this time last year, Clinton had the black vote sewn up. It was only through the Clinton’s campaign’s actions that black overwhelming moved over to support Obama. Even now, the Clinton’s are still losing what little black support they had.
The reverse just isn’t true. We’re not seeing 70% – 90% Latino, Jewish, Catholic or female votes for Clinton. In those 3 states that Clinton won by an “Obama majority” (25+ points), she had favorite son status.
Logically speaking trying to equate blacks with those other groups make no sense. If we were still in last fall, I’d be surprised that Armstrong is making this arguement. But I realized back in January, that his grasp on reality was slipping and some stupid post he had in Feb. sealed it.
And can we talk about the Black community’s history, recent history, of being disenfranchised? Seriously, the Democratic Party risks more than a sizable portion of the Black community sitting out this election if it disregards the popular vote in the Primaries. It risks alienating its most faithful voting block for many elections to come.
To be honest BM, I think you might be overestimating Jerome’s response. You’re assuming that Jerome is looking for a logical reason, the “disillusionment of the process” as you put it.
I’m fairly sure the context there of Jerome’s argument is that “segments of Latinos, perhaps part of the Jewish and Catholic vote, certain women and working-class Democrats” are going to vote for McCain/not vote at all if Clinton isn’t the nominee in spite of logic, not because of it.
He’s saying the result is “If Obama wins, segments A, B, and C will not vote for him. If Clinton wins, segments D, E, and F will not vote for her. We’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t.”
Logic has nothing to do with the argument, only the heavy burden of acceptance of the Village’s soul-crushing memes.
It seems to me Jerome Armstrong is engaging in brain cells gymnastics…usually an exercise that’s contraindicated for brain mass swelling, head ballooning and wrong reasoning.
Remind me again, where does Armstrong live?
Jerome’s a hack. That’s all it comes down to.
I will be happy when Obama sews up the nomination, his blog joins the ranks of RedState and Free Republic, and we can let Jerome get back to pushing stocks, or whatever else will further his own self-interest.
and let’s troll rate all of Clinton’s supporters out of the Dem party, because that will work so well.
I’d limit it to the most willfully stupid.
Christ, this woman is a congenital liar. I knew that about her husband, and once upon a time felt sorry for her, but now realize that this horrid pair deserves each other.
She lies about her position on MI and FL. Lies about Barack Obama protecting choice by voting present to help give cover to other legislators; on flippin’ PRINCIPLE that should have been off-limits, knowing how fragile the right to choose is.
But look at who I’m talking about.
And now she’s caught lying about Tuzla, and there was absolutely no reason to do so. NONE. Which says to me that she…
a) knows she’s a bit shaky on that “experience” thing that she loves to claim;
b) has an entitlement streak 10 miles long because she thinks no one will fact check her
pronouncementsclaims; ORc) is mentally unfit because she can’t stop lying, especially when there’s a high likelihood that she will get caught.
I really, really, can’t understand how any sentient being can continue to ignore this and claim with a straight face that she’s isn’t a liar unless that being is well compensated.
Enough is enough.
and it’s not the first time she’s been called out on the lies…er, embellishment of the truth.
the Good Friday Peace Agreement is a blatant example of the kind of self-aggrandizing rhetoric that’s been one of the hallmarks of her campaign:
of course, it’s been conspicuous in it’s absence in the msm.
what’s it going to take for people to recognize that this is all about her, and by association, bill’s sense of entitlement?
to be honest, if obama perseveres and loses the GE, l’ll lay the largest part of the blame on the clinton’s doorstep; in large part because of their negative tactics and politics of destruction.
losers, quite simply mired in the past, with no vision for the future…losers, but l repeat myself.
One of the most rewarding, educational and just plain fun moments of my life was had when I was invited to go to Northern Ireland in 1998; my visit lasted 10 days.
It really opened my eyes as to how prejudice and bigotry can play out in all kinds of ways. Here, it’s so obvious: Black/Brown/White. There, it’s of course, Protestant or Catholic. As an American, you go there thinking–well, how can you tell?
But you can suss out differences when you are taught to do so. It’s breathtaking…and frightening.
Back to the couple who lies with such ease, it’s troubling, though, I wonder…does George Mitchell factor anywhere in the Good Friday Agreement? Just curious, since she’s so far taken credit for things that Dodd did (FMLA), as well as work Kennedy and ((shudder)) Hatch did (SCHIP). I certainly remember that B. Clinton was thought of rather fondly by the people I met during my very short time there (we met w/ officials, both Protestant and Catholic, and of course, could not “take sides”).
Hillary…not so much.
Here in the Midwest we just call it a lie.
Clinton `Misspoke’ About Bosnia Trip, Campaign Says”
And the credibility faucet for HRC continues to drip, drip, drip.
Four Pinocchio Award, indeed.
She and her husband lie like people human beings breathe.
Two head-scratchers: 1) First–to be most charitable to her, which won’t happen again for the rest of my life at this point–why did she feel the need to embellish the story? Isn’t the fact that she went at all enough? 2) She must have known there would be videotape! Did she really think her claims would not be fact-checked?
TPM reported earlier today that her campaign tried to slam Obama’s by deriding their criticism as “amateur hour.”
A supposed campaign coronation that’s behind on every measure, likely in the red, losing superdelegates every week and now caught telling another bald-faced lie.
Amateur hour, indeed.
I’ve been telling people: The Clinton’s are running this campaign like it’s ’92 with me and a handful of people active on BBS and Usenet. They really don’t seem to get the internet or technology really. Every technological thing they’ve done was copied from the Obama campaign (i.e., cell phone calling parties). They even use YouTube wrong. Ha! I mean, how hard is it not to make craptastic and pukalicious videos? And then to inflict them on a wider audience is just cruel and inhumane.
In the interest of keeping the peace, I won’t share my first reaction after reading his bunk.
And it is woeful, willful, bunk.
In any tough fought primary campaign the loser and their supporters are disappointed, sometimes bitterly so. If they feel like their loss was due to dirty tactics and dishonest attacks, the bitterness can be long-lasting and even carry into the general election.
Which is why Obama’s 48 state strategy is a non-starter.
Why do you call it “Obama’s 48 state strategy”? Obama didn’t make FL and MI decide to hold their primaries earlier than the DNC allowed? And if his strategy in the remaining states is a non-starter, how come he’s winning?
And your link: Voters in MI should have gotten pissed before they participated in faux primaries. If they did get a re-vote I wouldn’t be at all sure that HRC would win. Afterall, she wouldn’t be the only name on the ballot in a real contest.
There are an awful lot of voters in Florida and Michigan who either didn’t vote or only had a soviet-style ballot in their primaries who dutifully skipped the proceedings under the assurance (which all the major candidates including Clinton echoed) that the votes weren’t going to count. And they’re unrepresented in the current tallies from both states.
If you seat the delegates as-is, saying essentially, “haha, we fooled you!” then you’re violating democratic principles no less than if you had simply not had a vote at all. You never hear team Clinton talk about those voters though, do you?
Hey there, I’ll ignore the name calling, cause you are bigger than that I know.
What I stated was that there would just as well be “an opposite reaction” with Obama getting the nomination.
You speak eloquently on behalf of black americans, but your argument is not against anything I wouldn’t acknowledge or anticipate happening if Clinton were to get the nomination.
In case Booman’s point didn’t get through: he’s saying that the backlash against an Obama win would be smaller in scope, both because Obama has more support among the public and because his win would be legitimate – clearly following the will of the electorate. A backlash against a Clinton win would be larger and more widespread, since she has less support among the public and her win would be illegitimate – overturning the will of the electorate.
Unless you can articulate some legitimate path to victory for Clinton based on the remaining states that does not involve continuing her current GOP-derived methods, stealing delegates from Obama, or convincing the superdelegates to overturn Obama’s victory, his analysis seems sound.
I agree about you interpretation of what the backlash would be like given where we stand today, but there’s still more than 2 months worth of contests to go, and FL & MI outcomes to be decided. I’m not going to pretend to know what the landscape will look like in June.
FL and MI should not be seated, period. They broke the rules. Do we stand for the rule of law, or do we stand with Bush and his supporters for the rule of convenience? What message does it send to respect an election where there was only one candidate on the ballot? If that’s the kind of democracy Clinton advocates, I want no part of it.
As for the remaining states, I repeat my question: can you see any way for Hillary to win that does not require continuing her repulsive, Rovian smear campaign or overturning the will of the people at the convention?
FL and MI should not be seated, period. They broke the rules. Do we stand for the rule of law, or do we stand with Bush and his supporters for the rule of convenience?
er, we are not talking about laws, we are talking about the rules of the Democratic National Convention, which are subject to change, there is even a procedure for that.
If we want to win in Nov FL and MI must be seated. If their votes are arbitrarily assigned without any reference to the voters in those states, not only will we lose both states in Nov, we will have betrayed our principles and sacrificed the moral high ground.
We have to see this from the voter’s point of view, not our candidate’s. Elections are not about who wins, they are about who chooses.
And rules are made to be broken, right? You can just change them in mid-stream, right? And I guess it doesn’t matter that the other 44 states (excluding the early primary/caucus states plus MI and FL) followed the rules, does it?
But “It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything applied only when she was expecting a coronation. She wasn’t indignant back then, in October.
That’s. Not. Rain.
If what you say is true, a Democratic Presidential victory is impossible without Dean’s 50-state plan – which, by the way, Obama supports and Clinton violently, venomously, and vehemently opposes. The state legislatures that the Clintons and their allies ceded to the Republicans can destroy the Democratic nomination process at will.
I’m sorry, but this is pure opportunistic garbage.
Michigan, and Michigan alone, is at fault for breaking DNC rules and shooting itself in the foot (oven mitt?), and for not allowing a do-over. It was offered the chance, and Her Majesty’s bestest bigwigs were all in favor of funding it themselves (nevermind the questions of fraud that should’ve raised among all sane people).
There was a poll done on this in Florida recently, and the poll showed that only 24% of Dems in God’s Waiting Room wanted the delegates to be seated based upon that joke of a contest. The overwhelming majority wanted delegates either split 50/50 or assigned based upon the popular vote.
Nice try, thanks for playin’.
That’s the problem, which Clinton supporters are also willfully stupid about.
All candidates agreed that a Democratic vote in both MI and FL contests would not count. Us Michiganders–all my friends anyway–voted for folks like Ron Paul, just to toss a wrench into the GOP race. Again, the Dem vote would not be counted, we were assured. Plus, our candidate was NOT EVEN ON THE TICKET, because it was agreed the Dem vote would not count.
You have no clue as to how pissed we would be if all of a sudden we hear that we were lied to and tricked. That is a far greater outrage than a Clinton-fueled Johnny-come-lately faux outrage manufactured AFTER the bogus results came in. If the candidates wanted MI and FL seated, they should NEVER have agreed to a faux election that did nothing less than bamboozle the electorate. That is the very definition of disenfranchisement.
You’ve illustrated exactly the problem that I talked about to somebody else about a month ago.
What makes the election illegitimate is only partly that people were told that their vote wouldn’t count.
But the other part is equally as important. Voters who may have supported Candidate A made the choice to instead stay home or vote Republican because they were told that the votes of all the people who showed up to vote for Candidate B weren’t going to count either.
As a voter you were relying on the fact that the votes cast for Hillary wouldn’t count when you made your choice about whether to vote or whether to cross over.
I simply do not see how anyone can make a claim that the FL or MI elections were legitimate expressions of the will of the voters of those states.
Well, truthfully MI and FL were always going to be seated. Everyone assumed that this whole thing would be over by SuperTuesday and Hillary would win. Once she had enough delegates to lock it up she would move for FL and MI to be seated.
The same thing can happen with Obama too though. He can slog through to the end; then the superdelegates move en masse to endorse him. As long as he gets enough supers to lock it up he can move to have them seated too.
The only way it doesn’t work is if the superdelegates don’t move to endorse one candidate in June. I don’t think that’s likely – I think there will be tremendous pressure on them to end it and once a large enough block moves the rest will follow (probably including some of those currently endorsing Hillary).
The biggest problem really is all this talk by Hillary about disenfranchising them means that she’s getting MI and FL all riled up. For nothing.
I don’t know you, nor can I fathom why you are considered to be such a big deal, but the words attributed to you by Booman were as offensive as they were uninformed.
Just words.
And quite telling.
It’s good of you to come over here and respond Jerome. Personally, I dislike it when bloggers decide to respond to each other on their own blogs rather than just coming over and engaging in face to face (so to speak) dialog. So kudos to you.
I understand what you are saying about there being an opposite reaction if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination. But I don’t think that it is an “equal and opposite” reaction.
I’ve seen no evidence, for instance, from the Latino community that leads me to believe a large portion of that community of voters would be so upset if the superdelegates gave the nomination to Obama only because Obama had a pledged delegate lead that they would refuse to vote for Obama. Perhaps though you could provide a link to some evidence of that.
I’ve also not seen that reaction from women voters in real life (plenty of it on-line, but on-line is only a tiny percentage of real life). And I’ve talked to a lot of women. If the superdelegates choose Obama because he has a pledged delegate lead, my take on the real life community of women voter in my area would be that they would shrug and say ok, that’s the way it is.
But if the superdelegates were to choose Hillary over Obama while Obama had the lead in pledged delegates, the feedback I’m getting from my local black community is that they would see Hillary as an illegitimate nominee and would (at best) not vote for her and (at worst) stay home. I say “at worst” because Dems in my state can’t win without the black vote and so staying home would affect every downticket race.
Now, I’m well aware that the superdelegates can decide this matter in whatever way they want. They can flip a coin. They can consult a ouija board. They can hold up the candidates for promises of tangible rewards.
But I believe that most of them also see that there would not be an equal and opposite reaction to the choices between choosing Obama and Hillary when Obama has the lead in pledged delegates. And they will base their choice, in part, on that. I also honestly believe that if they don’t, the Democratic party will be damaged, perhaps irreparably. But of course that’s just my opinion.
Right, again, I didn’t say “equal and opposite reaction,” but instead said “opposite reaction” on purpose with that distinction.
I really don’t pretend to know wich is equal or which is greater, but I’ve blogged that there’s a reaction going on for both sides; surely Longman has read the same recent exit polls and those recent out of PA, showing it to be the case on both sides.
Speaking for myself: she’s forever and always lost my vote. At this point, I will only vote down ticket so I can call Donna Edwards my congresswoman and vote on whatever local issue comes up.
But as far as encouraging folks to go to the polls if she steals this thing, even to vote for downticket races…mmmm, not so much.
It would represent the first non-involvement since I reached voting age. But it must be done if this is the path they take.
Their lies will not be rewarded by this voter.
but …. if everyone just stays away from the polls and she loses that’s one thing. She can only speculate on WHY she lost.
If everyone goes to the polls in HUGE numbers and votes for all the downticket Dems who then WIN because of the big turnout – it will a much bigger slap in the face. imo
You know, you may be right about that–I just don’t know if I could be bothered.
It’s been sixteen years of this. It’s not like I haven’t supported them in the past, through thick and thin. Through all of their collective bullshit, I have supported them and defended them.
I. Am. Done.
It is time for a different way. Beyond time.
If mutually assured destruction is what they seek, mutually assured destruction is what they shall find.
ah well.
I was just practicing my act in case Hillary is at the top of the ticket. I have to tell you though, I’m going to be pretty ticked off at those people in my state who would stay home because of Hillary and risk us having another Republican governor.
l’m assuming this scenario means leaving the presidential selection blank or voting for a third part>or you could always write in chris.
should she steal the nomination, that’s certainly a viable option here in Co.
she cannot win here, the caucuses, and all the polling to date bear that out in no uncertain terms.
but then we don’t figure into her big state strategy.
l hope the adults take charge soon.
Jerome-
We don’t have to delve any further into your comments than its opening.
I’m taking you at your word that you don’t understand this. If you don’t understand it then you are lacking any real experience interacting with the black community.
I spent 2004 working with the black community in both the south (Florida) and the north (Pennsylvania) to register voters and get out the vote. It was a very difficult job to convince people that their votes would be counted because the 2000 vote was still a raw nerve. I was reduced to arguing that Bush could steal a close election but he couldn’t steal a blowout. That was often the only way I could penetrate the cynicism and resignation of the black community.
It’s impossible to say how much the 2000 experience depressed black turnout in 2004, but it was the single greatest obstacle to getting people to register and then getting them to vote.
I can express in words how devastating it will be to the black community if Barack Obama wins the pledged delegates and does not get the nomination.
On the other hand, if Obama does win the nomination, the registration and turnout will be unheard of and will benefit candidates downticket in statewide races all over the country.
That will be true whether or not Obama ultimately loses. The black voting bloc will be disappointed but they will remain loyal to the party and engaged in politics.
If you cannot see it, then I really don’t think you are qualified to do the job you do.
His candidate hasn’t a chance, so now Jerome has to walk a long way back from the edge. How on earth is he going to justify to himself and especially his readers after all the poo he’s flung? He can’t exactly turn around and rally behind Obama without looking like a complete tool.
There are financial pressures, too. His donations are likely to taper off if Obama gets the nomination. Who wants to give to a bitter crust of a website that backed a loser and then pouted through the general election? The old rent check is still due.
But if, somehow, she can pull it out, he’s a genius! Maybe he’ll even get a job with the campaign. He’ll sought after as a pundit… oh, no wait. Being right has nothing to do with one’s success as a pundit. Scratch that last part.
It is willful, but it is not stupidity. It is all about site visits and the home that the Clintonites made on MyDD. It is all about eating and a place to sleep at night. So don’t take Jerome to seriously. You have to deal with him in the same way you deal with Kos. Not too seriously.
wow, real coalition builder.
and yeah, you really can read Jerome’s mind, or something.
Actually, we have about an equal number of Obama and Clinton supporters on MyDD. It’s sorta like the Democratic party.
We also make it a point not to allow childish name-calling against other users…
At this point the DLC has more donors than voters, and we need to spread the cash to someone. If things get a bit thin, think about it.
It’s not really tainted money, and we don’t really ask you to actually do anything for it. Just every now and then, when we need to drop something into the blogosphere… it’s not much work, at all. You’re articulate and bright, you work hard — why not get something for your efforts?
uh…what?!? I stopped posting to MYDD after being called “stupid” and an “obamabot” for daring to suggest that Clinton might not be the better candidate. MYDD is absurdly pro-Clinton, and, at least in my experience, openly hostile to Obama supporters.
“We also make it a point not to allow childish name-calling against other users…”
At least not directly, openly & overtly …
Passive-aggressively? That’s OK.
Then there’s his latest post about The Rules(TM), quoting the nutters over at TalkLeft on superdelegates:
Obama supporters are arguing for no such thing. These are very silly people, really. They’re arguing superdelegates should side with the pledged-delegate leader, not that they should be forced to by the rules. TalkLeft’s claims, and the echoes of its sadly declining Hillbot-comrade MyDD, are patently absurd.
Kind of like Florida and Michigan, right? When did the rules suddenly become important to the Looney Toons at MyDD?
Armstrong is a court jester. That’s really all there is to it, so let it go, and let MyDD go on with its merry decline into paranoia and spin. I’d hoped that sort of decline could be left to unhinged hate-mongers like Taylor Marsh, but it’s of little loss anyway.
We could have them based on the Electoral College. Might help.
There are going to be some women that think Clinton was treated unfairly in this process because of her gender, but very few of them will be able to harbor the kind of lingering resentment toward the Obama campaign that would preclude them from supporting him in the fall.
I have a question regarding the above quote from the original post.
How do you know?
Um, because there is no evidence of the Obama campaign gender-baiting, or making Clinton’s gender an electability issue in the way that Clinton has helped to make Obama’s race/ethnicity an electability issue.
Not that the Clinton campaign has required evidence for their stances, but one can hope..